On February 8, 2025, the Supreme Court of India, in a landmark ruling, addressed the issue of handcuffing accused individuals and its impact on their fundamental rights. The case, Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, was heard by a bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh. The judgment focused on the arrest and subsequent treatment of Vihaan Kumar by the Haryana Police as handcuffing him, particularly the violation of his rights under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution.
Background of the Case
The appellant, Vihaan Kumar, was arrested in connection with an FIR registered for offenses under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, and 471 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). He claimed that he was taken into custody without being informed of the grounds or reasons for his arrest, which violated his fundamental rights under Article 22(1) of the Constitution. Additionally, during his detention, Kumar was hospitalized and was allegedly handcuffed to his hospital bed, raising concerns about the violation of his right to dignity under Article 21.
Kumar filed a petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, challenging his arrest and seeking release on the grounds that it was patently illegal. He argued that the police failed to communicate the grounds of his arrest, making the entire process unconstitutional. However, the High Court dismissed his petition, stating that his allegations about not being informed of his arrest were “simply bald” and did not require further examination. Dissatisfied with this outcome, Kumar appealed to the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues
The Supreme Court examined two primary legal questions:
- Violation of Article 22(1): Whether the appellant was informed of the grounds for his arrest as mandated by Article 22(1) of the Constitution.
- Violation of Article 21: Whether the act of handcuffing the appellant while he was hospitalized infringed upon his fundamental right to dignity under Article 21.
Court’s Observations and Judgment
The bench, comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, delivered separate but concurring judgments.
- On Article 22(1) Violation: The Court emphasized that Article 22(1) mandates that an arrested individual must be informed of the grounds for their arrest. The Court found no contemporaneous records indicating that Kumar was informed of these grounds. The bench stated, “Only on the basis of a vague entry in the police diary, we cannot accept that compliance with Article 22(1) can be inferred.” Consequently, the Court held that Kumar’s arrest was illegal due to non-compliance with constitutional requirements.
The Court also criticized the approach taken by the High Court, pointing out that it had mistakenly equated the mere provision of information about the appellant’s arrest and actually informing him of the grounds of arrest. It found the High Court’s dismissal of the appellant’s claim as a “bald allegation” to be unjustified. The Supreme Court stressed that all courts, including the High Court, have a responsibility to uphold fundamental rights. Once a violation of Article 22(1) was alleged, the High Court had a duty to thoroughly examine the claim and reach a decision, rather than dismissing it without proper consideration.
- On Article 21 Violation: Addressing the issue of handcuffing, the Court referred to previous judgments that have consistently held that handcuffing is a prima facie inhuman and degrading practice. The Court reiterated that handcuffing should only be employed in exceptional circumstances where there is a clear and present danger of escape or violence, and even then, proper justification must be provided. In Kumar’s case, the Court found no such justification. The bench noted, “The shocking treatment meted out to the appellant by the police while he was in the hospital bed is a gross violation of his fundamental right to dignity.”
Directives Issued Handcuffing Accused
In light of these findings, the Supreme Court issued the following directives:
- Immediate Release: Ordered the immediate release of Vihaan Kumar, declaring his arrest illegal.
- Guidelines for Police Conduct: Directed the State Police to issue guidelines or departmental instructions to ensure that:
- The act of handcuffing accused individuals while they are on a hospital bed and tying them to the hospital bed is not committed again.
- The constitutional safeguards under Article 22 are strictly followed.
- If necessary, the State Government shall amend the existing Rules/guidelines.
- Legal Compliance:The Court held, “Therefore, in the facts of the case, we have no hesitation in holding that the arrest of the appellant was rendered illegal on account of failure to communicate the grounds of arrest to the appellant as mandated by Article 22(1) of the Constitution.” Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal.
International Guidelines on Handcuffing Accused Individuals
Here are some key international rules and directives regarding handcuffing accused individuals:
United States
- Case Law: Tennessee v. Garner (1985) & Graham v. Connor (1989)
- Directive: The use of handcuffs must be justified by the circumstances. Courts have ruled that handcuffing should not be excessive, degrading, or unnecessary.
- Fourth Amendment: Protects individuals from unreasonable seizures, meaning law enforcement must justify the use of handcuffs.
United Kingdom
- Directive: Police officers must follow the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984, which states that:
- Handcuffing must be reasonable and necessary based on the suspect’s behavior.
- Officers must record and justify why handcuffing was used.
- Handcuffing should not be used to degrade or humiliate an accused person.
Canada
- Directive: The use of handcuffs must be lawful, necessary, and proportionate to the risk involved. Police officers must be able to justify why handcuffing is required in each case.
- Updated Policies:
- The Vancouver Police Department (VPD) updated its policy to require officers to consider factors like age, ethnicity, and seriousness of the incident before applying handcuffs.
- The Surrey Police Service mandates that officers check for tightness, double-lock the handcuffs, and respond immediately to complaints about discomfort.
- Legal Basis: Officers must adhere to Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ensuring that handcuffing does not violate a person’s right to security and dignity.
European Union (EU)
- Directive: Handcuffing must comply with human rights principles, ensuring it is necessary, lawful, and proportionate.
- European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) Article 3: Prohibits inhuman or degrading treatment, meaning excessive or unjustified handcuffing can be a rights violation.
- European Code of Police Ethics: Requires that all police actions, including handcuffing, respect fundamental rights and freedoms.
- ECtHR Case Law:
- In Henaf v. France (2003), the European Court ruled that handcuffing a sick prisoner to a hospital bed was a human rights violation.
- In Raninen v. Finland (1997), the court held that handcuffing must be proportionate to the risk posed by the suspect.
Australia
- Directive: Police in Australia are authorized to use handcuffs only when necessary, such as to prevent escape, ensure safety, or protect evidence.
- Use of Force Guidelines:
- Handcuffing must be proportionate to the situation and must not be used in a cruel, inhuman, or degrading manner.
- Officers must assess each case individually and apply only the minimum force necessary.
- Jurisdiction-Based Rules: Each state and territory has specific police policies governing when and how handcuffs should be used, ensuring compliance with human rights laws
Many countries emphasize that handcuffing accused individuals should be a last resort and must be justified by law. Courts across the world, including in India, have ruled that unnecessary or degrading handcuffing violates fundamental rights and must be prevented.
Final Thoughts
This ruling reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the fundamental rights of individuals, even those accused of criminal offenses. The judgment serves as a reminder to law enforcement agencies about the importance of adhering to constitutional mandates and respecting the dignity of individuals in their custody.
By addressing the issues of handcuffing accused individuals and ensuring compliance with procedural safeguards, the Supreme Court has underscored the balance between effective law enforcement and the protection of individual rights. This case sets a precedent for future conduct by law enforcement agencies, emphasizing that the fundamental rights of the accused must not be compromised, and any deviation from established legal procedures will be met with strict judicial scrutiny.
